Plugin Boutique - 80% off of Three-Body Technology Kirchhoff-EQ

[fjz]

$61.00   $306.00

80% off until Nov 02

https://www.pluginboutique.com/product/2-Effects/16-EQ/14762-Three-Body-Technology-Kirchhoff-EQ

[ptheisen]

For what it's worth, the Kirchhoff-EQ is currently available at Plugin Alliance for $59.99. It doesn't specify for how long.

[Brian Walton]

Honestly at that price I think the newish Toneboosters Pro EQ is a better deal.  The interface is certainly more pleasing and the sound is great.  

 

Yes, I have the Kirchhoff and it is excellent, but I also find the interface elements to be "too small" even though the overall interface is resizable.  It does sound as good as anything out there to me though.

[MusicMan]

5 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

Honestly at that price I think the newish Toneboosters Pro EQ is a better deal.  The interface is certainly more pleasing and the sound is great.  

 

Yes, I have the Kirchhoff and it is excellent, but I also find the interface elements to be "too small" even though the overall interface is resizable.  It does sound as good as anything out there to me though.

The Toneboosters one is really nice, but I still think Kirchhoff sounds better. Not that it's the only measure, but in their default settings, it's also cleaner in Plugin Doctor.

Another one that really surprised me was apQualizr2 by apulSoft. I picked up the bundle cheaper than either Kirchoff or Pro EQ and it's a really nice clean surgical and creative EQ. Workflow is easy, but it feels a little clunky for some reason.

I really rate it for clean or experimental as it has all sorts of modulation you can use.

Edited Thursday at 11:18 PM by MusicMan

[Brian Walton]

1 hour ago, MusicMan said:

The Toneboosters one is really nice, but I still think Kirchhoff sounds better. Not that it's the only measure, but in their default settings, it's also cleaner in Plugin Doctor.

Another one that really surprised me was apQualizr2 by apulSoft. I picked up the bundle cheaper than either Kirchoff or Pro EQ and it's a really nice clean surgical and creative EQ. Workflow is easy, but it feels a little clunky for some reason.

I really rate it for clean or experimental as it has all sorts of modulation you can use.

When I tested them I'll admit that at really extreme settings Kirchoff impressed me more than any other eq.  That said, when I did a/b testing on normal settings that didn't need insane boosts someone shouldn't have to do with any decent source the differences I found to be negligible at best and the added filter types and far better interface for me personally certainly overcame any minor differences.

Now if I have something that needs a crazy boost or cut, yes, Kirchoff is coming out.

But for a tool that is basically on every track that I have to look at constantly, my vote goes for Toneboosters Pro.

I bought Kirchoff before the TBP came out and expected it to be the end all eq but that interface leaves a lot to be desired.  My eyesight and corrective lenses fall short.  While it isn't anywhere close to the worst, they clearly don't have PHDs in human factors.

[Esteban Villanova]

Agree with your assessment. TB eq's have weird phase response in the high frequencies. It looks like it has a very steep low pass filter at nyquist or something. Kirchoof sounds better, but GUI is kind of meh. Can't have it all, it seems.

[fjz]

How do you guys like or compare the Kirchhoff and the Toneboosters to the FabFilter Pro Q4 (that I don't see myself ever paying 200 for). I haven't used any of the these eq's as I basically use what comes with my DAW and some of the many IK character ones I have. 

[kitekrazy1]

1 hour ago, fjz said:

How do you guys like or compare the Kirchhoff and the Toneboosters to the FabFilter Pro Q4 (that I don't see myself ever paying 200 for). I haven't used any of the these eq's as I basically use what comes with my DAW and some of the many IK character ones I have. 

Best idea ever

[MusicMan]

3 hours ago, fjz said:

How do you guys like or compare the Kirchhoff and the Toneboosters to the FabFilter Pro Q4 (that I don't see myself ever paying 200 for). I haven't used any of the these eq's as I basically use what comes with my DAW and some of the many IK character ones I have. 

I never really liked the sound of ProQ3 which is a bit opposite to most people.. I think it's to do with transient smearing, or something. But I love the workflow. FabFilter nails that. ProQ4 is supposed to be improved, but I still prefer some of the others. I'll still use it and it's a very good overall EQ, but if I didn't get EDU discount, I may have skipped it and stuck with ProQ3. As for stock DAW EQs it depends on the DAW. Frequency 2 in a certain DAW I use is very good. 

Edited Friday at 06:14 AM by MusicMan

[ptheisen]

Another alternative channel strip to consider is the Fuse Audio Labs VCS-1. Not as many features as the Kirchhoff or TB Pro. As far as how it looks in Plugin Doctor, it is actually much cleaner than the TB Pro. I don't have the Kirchhoff to test, so I can't compare it to the Fuse Audio.

I purchased the VCS-1 because it feels like the right tool for me, and it's selling for $15 right now at Plugin Boutique.

Edited Friday at 02:12 PM by ptheisen

[dubdisciple]

I have the kirchoff and toneboosters is definitely the better value even if kirchoff is a hair better. With that said, I use stock EQ more 

[Brian Walton]

On 10/31/2025 at 10:11 AM, ptheisen said:

Another alternative channel strip to consider is the Fuse Audio Labs VCS-1. Not as many features as the Kirchhoff or TB Pro. As far as how it looks in Plugin Doctor, it is actually much cleaner than the TB Pro. I don't have the Kirchhoff to test, so I can't compare it to the Fuse Audio.

I purchased the VCS-1 because it feels like the right tool for me, and it's selling for $15 right now at Plugin Boutique.

Define clean in plugin dr.  The program is great for seeing where eq curves and shapes are in a neutral way, but can be very misleading in terms of real world perception of things like distortion, phase shifts, etc.  

[MusicMan]

10 hours ago, dubdisciple said:

I have the kirchoff and toneboosters is definitely the better value even if kirchoff is a hair better. With that said, I use stock EQ more 

At RRP levels Toneboosters smashes Kirchoff on value. But from memory, they don't really discount, whereas if you can stack a voucher, the Kirchoff can be cheaper, which makes it less clear cut.

I already owned it, but I believe it was possible to get it down a lot less the other day.

For example Three-Body Technology Cenozoix Compressor AND Three-Body Technology Trinity Shaper together could be had for around $39 in total with a $25 loyalty voucher, which are pretty common and often given away.

[MusicMan]

4 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

Define clean in plugin dr.  The program is great for seeing where eq curves and shapes are in a neutral way, but can be very misleading in terms of real world perception of things like distortion, phase shifts, etc.  

I think they're referring to these ones.

For harmonics and IMD (Intermodulation Distortion)

Kirchhoff in purple, Toneboosters in Red.

Kirchhoff is completely clean from a THD / IMD perspective. What goes in, comes out, nothing else.

From a technical perspective, these should be pretty reliable from my understanding (limited, I'm no Plugin Doctor expert!).

From a whether it matters / low levels / accumulation / if it sounds good, it is good / etc. that's a different conversation, but from a scientific perspective, it's measurable.

apQualizr2 is also exactly like Kirchhoff in these tests too.

[Brian Walton]

7 hours ago, MusicMan said:

I think they're referring to these ones

From a whether it matters / low levels / accumulation / if it sounds good, it is good / etc. that's a different conversation, but from a scientific perspective, it's measurable.

 

 

Yes, my point related to misleading has to do with the perception of these differences are material from a human hearing perspective.  

Just because it is visually showing up in a chart doesn't mean you can consciously hear it or that the result isn't pleasing .  This I think with levels that low you have to use your ears to say "does this matter to me" which is a different and perhaps more important question.  

Tube amplification creates both harmonic and IMD so even high end real world gear would show up on these plugin dr tests, so I think this is where using the results can potentially mislead some one into thinking a tool isn't good enough or doing something unforgivable to audio.

I'm more of a test to see what is going on out of curiosity but then use your ears to determine if you like the results type.

 

[MusicMan]

14 minutes ago, Brian Walton said:

Yes, my point related to misleading has to do with the perception of these differences are material from a human hearing perspective.  

Just because it is visually showing up in a chart doesn't mean you can consciously hear it or that the result isn't pleasing .  This I think with levels that low you have to use your ears to say "does this matter to me" which is a different and perhaps more important question.  

Tube amplification creates both harmonic and IMD so even high end real world gear would show up on these plugin dr tests, so I think this is where using the results can potentially mislead some one into thinking a tool isn't good enough or doing something unforgivable to audio.

I'm more of a test to see what is going on out of curiosity but then use your ears to determine if you like the results type.

I'd agree with most of that Brian. I often open Plugin Doctor when I hear a difference to see if there's anything obvious. I still remember Dan Worrall's video saying that all digital EQs sound identical (with matching curves), but that's not what I've experienced.

There's something I hear in the Kirchhoff and apQualizr2 that sounds cleaner than the Toneboosters (or ProQ3 for that matter). I noticed it with ProQ3 as soon as I bought it, but couldn't understand why. Kirchhoff sounded better too. What Dan Worrall said makes total sense and he's pretty clued up when it comes to that sort of thing too!

As for tube gear, the consensus still seems to be that the hardware saturation can't be recreated properly in plugins, so there can be different types of qualities between hardware and software that might be coming into play there. But with a digital EQ like Kirchhoff, I'd want it to be capable of surgical and clean rather than getting any harmonic content from it.

I'll happily use vintage emulations regardless of aliasing, THD, or IMD if I like the sound in spite of what Plugin Doctor shows. If I like it, I like it. That's what I'm doing with these ones here, it's just that Plugin Doctor also displays some differences that support what I'm hearing. Now whether they are the reason they sound different to me, or it's something else, I can't say for sure. I'm still leaning towards transient smearing as from what I've read, that sounds the closest to what I can hear, but who knows.

[Fleer]

Still, could there be some truth in people saying Kirchhoff is a FabFilter knock off?

[CSistine]

1 hour ago, MusicMan said:

I'd agree with most of that Brian. I often open Plugin Doctor when I hear a difference to see if there's anything obvious. I still remember Dan Worrall's video saying that all digital EQs sound identical (with matching curves), but that's not what I've experienced.

There's something I hear in the Kirchhoff and apQualizr2 that sounds cleaner than the Toneboosters (or ProQ3 for that matter). I noticed it with ProQ3 as soon as I bought it, but couldn't understand why. Kirchhoff sounded better too. What Dan Worrall said makes total sense and he's pretty clued up when it comes to that sort of thing too!

As for tube gear, the consensus still seems to be that the hardware saturation can't be recreated properly in plugins, so there can be different types of qualities between hardware and software that might be coming into play there. But with a digital EQ like Kirchhoff, I'd want it to be capable of surgical and clean rather than getting any harmonic content from it.

I'll happily use vintage emulations regardless of aliasing, THD, or IMD if I like the sound in spite of what Plugin Doctor shows. If I like it, I like it. That's what I'm doing with these ones here, it's just that Plugin Doctor also displays some differences that support what I'm hearing. Now whether they are the reason they sound different to me, or it's something else, I can't say for sure. I'm still leaning towards transient smearing as from what I've read, that sounds the closest to what I can hear, but who knows.

Frankly, I admire people that hear such minor differences! My hearing is so bad these days.

On the other hand it depends what you are mixing. The songs that I mix have a lot of masking issues. When they are resolved, then I think nobody could hear any differences concerning the used EQs. But maybe I'm wrong?

[ptheisen]

17 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

Define clean in plugin dr.  The program is great for seeing where eq curves and shapes are in a neutral way, but can be very misleading in terms of real world perception of things like distortion, phase shifts, etc.  

By clean in Plugin Doctor I am referring to its ability to show things like noise and aliasing introduced by the plugin.

Under conditions that tend to introduce these things, such as saturation and compression, the TB Pro channel strip introduces much more noise and aliasing than the Fuse Audio channel strip. For most intents and purposes, but certainly not all, noise and aliasing are unintended consequences of the saturation and compression. In most cases, the levels are low enough so as to make them inaudible, but in some cases, the levels for the TB Pro channel strip were definitely in the audible level range.

Whether that sound is desirable or not is up to each person to decide. People should prioritize sound over measurements, and sound is very subjective, so I am not making any claim as to which one sounds better.

I just said that the Fuse Audio channel strip is cleaner, and that is something I personally appreciate. There was someone else claiming the opposite in a different forum with regard to noise and aliasing shortly after the Fuse Audio channel strip was released a few years ago, but my recent testing did not confirm this at all. 

[CSistine]

2 hours ago, ptheisen said:

TB Pro channel strip

Do you refer to the channel strip of TBProAudio or the TB_Equalizer Pro of Toneboosters?